State regulation of molasses upheld where it did not conflict with Central industrial control or occupy the same field.

The Rajasthan Excise Amendment Act, 1985 validly extended State excise regulation to molasses because it operated in a field available to the State and did not conflict with the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 or the Molasses Control Order, 1961. Although molasses was linked to the sugar industry, the State provisions dealt with import, export, transport and possession, while the Central order governed sale, removal, storage, grading and pricing. As the two regimes occupied different spheres and no real inconsistency arose, the challenge to legislative competence failed and the State amendment was upheld under the constitutional distribution of legislative power.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Rajasthan Excise Amendment Act, 1985, in so far as it introduced molasses into the regulatory scheme of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, was within the legislative competence of the State and whether it was repugnant to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and the Molasses Control Order, 1961.

Analysis: Molasses was treated as a product of the sugar industry, an industry covered by the Union legislation under the relevant constitutional scheme, but the State also retained power under the State List to regulate intoxicating liquors and related matters. The amendment merely defined molasses and extended the State excise rules to its import, export, transport and possession. The regulatory provisions under the State amendment did not occupy the same field as the Central control order, which dealt with sale, removal, storage, grading and pricing. The two sets of provisions operated in different spheres and did not create any real conflict or inconsistency. The State enactment was therefore supported by the concurrent and State legislative entries and remained within the constitutional allocation of power.

Conclusion: The challenge to the legislative competence of the State failed. The amendment was not repugnant to the Central law or the Molasses Control Order and was valid under Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and the impugned State amendment was upheld as a valid exercise of legislative power.

Ratio Decidendi: A State law regulating a product connected with a Union-controlled industry is valid where it operates within an area reserved or concurrently available to the State and does not trench upon or conflict with the field occupied by the Central law.

---